The following statement was given during the "Open Forum" session on
Friday, 10 June 2005, during the 61st FIAF Congress in Ljubljana. It was
written on the spur of the moment, as a somewhat unguarded reaction
to the presentations and debates on Wednesday.
Since the first comments following my statement were extremely
"controversial" and wide-ranging, I would like to stress again what I
expressed when introducing it last Friday: that I was speaking in the spirit
of the polemic, to stir up debate; that it was probably an "improper"
thing to do (considering the diplomatic nature of most FIAF proceedings),
but that I felt it to be necessary all the same. For reasons of brevity, I
didn't touch on many important issues relating to this topic. Also, I am
well aware that the oppositional paths which are evoked in the latter
part of this text cannot in any way do justice to the panoramic variety of
institutional models that are represented in FIAF. But just as most
utopian visions of "our digital future" have never (and will never) really
become a reality, my own "dystopian vision" is very much a stark and
admittedly unsubtle projection of certain visible details onto a wider and
darker horizon, hopefully never to be realized.
Since he is the only (living) archive person mentioned by name, I should
also add that Nicola Mazzanti ­ who was sadly no longer present on
Friday ­ is no stranger to polemic himself, so I took the freedom to
respond to his "invitation". I do, however, look forward to continuing this
debate in a more extended and less pointed fashion. In the end, I am
most interested to find out which image we ­ the members of the FIAF
community ­ have (and want to have) of ourselves; and what our
perceived role in society is, as curators and museum directors,
programmers and archivists, and "techies","politicos", and "passeurs".
I have not revised the text since Friday, but I have tried to straighten out
some bad English (of which there is still certainly enough).
Alexander Horwath, 13 June 2005
Thank you for the opportunity to be polemical and to give you some
observations and critical remarks about what I perceive to be not just a
shift, but a "neo-liberal turn" in film archive and film museum politics.
We are currently witnessing this turn or are ourselves part of it ­ and I
think there are good reasons to oppose it as far as one can.
My examples do, in some way, relate to the workshop of the Technical
Commission on Wednesday morning, but the language, rhetoric, and
ideology which were partly expressed there are in no way singular
The Market vs the Museum est une
réaction  chaud proposée aux
participants de ľOpen Forum qui
ouvrait le 61e congrs de la FIAF, le 10
juin dernier. Ce texte, qui a
immédiatement suscité de nombreuses
réactions, se présentait comme un
commentaire en marge de ľatelier de
la Commission technique du mercredi
précédent.
Ľauteur rappelle qu'il a préparé ce
texte dans un esprit polémique et avec
ľespoir de susciter un débat. Qui plus
est, il rappelle que Nicola Mazzanti,
ľun des membres de la Commission
technique qui est pris  parti dans ce
texte, avait lui-mme souhaité qu'on
réagisse aux propositions de la
Commission. Mais au-del des
questions immédiatement soulevées
par ľatelier de la Commission, c'est
plus largement le rôle des archivistes
dans la société que ľauteur voudrait
voir clarifier par ses collgues,
conservateurs et directeurs de musées,
archivistes et responsables de la
programmation.
Selon ľauteur, nous faisons
The Market vs.The Museum
Alexander Horwath
Open Forum
5 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
6 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
cases. I have heard them over and over ­ and more and more
vehemently ­ on many platforms and in many contexts over the past
few years. I think that it is necessary to look at this rhetoric more
closely, in relation to the unique abilities of the museum as well as socalled
"market realities".
On the surface, this is a debate or controversy about Digital vs. Film and
about the question What is Film? I do not want to engage in this
debate here, even though it is far from clear, and is getting increasingly
unclear every day. In our context, I think that the Digital vs. Film
opposition only cloaks the real opposition, namely The Market vs. The
Museum, and that behind the question What is Film? one may find the
question What is the Museum?
I would like to name just three examples of this shift ­ three terms
which, parallel to the development of Digital rhetoric, have massively
entered our language: content, access, and user. Of course, all three are
very innocent terms, and they signify a number of positive things ­ for
instance, certain democratic, anti-elitist forms of behaviour, and the
"opening" of formerly "closed" institutions. I would, however, like to
draw your attention to the way in which these terms are also being
used to install a market logic at the cost of the critical and political
functions of the museum.
Firstly: content ­ in other words, our collections. This rhetoric doesn't
say artefacts, but content, much like the Hollywood industry uses the
word product for films. In this sense, content is a combative term to
somehow get rid of the material artefact with which every content is
irrevocably joined. This use of the word content desires a kind of "free
flow" of content, much like the "free flow of capital" in contemporary
finance capitalism.
Secondly: access, meaning the way in which archive and museum
collections are being presented to the public and are enriching public
knowledge. The way access is being used in the neo-liberal rhetoric, it
mainly means consumption. Not creating and curating various forms of
engagement with the artefact, but turning the collections into imagebanks
for intermediary dealers and end-consumers.
Thirdly: the user, meaning the person who comes in contact with our
institutions and our collections. By user, market-style rhetoric does not
really mean the interested citizen who is met at eye-level by the
museum and who in turn is called upon to meet the artefacts and
collections at eye-level. Quite the opposite ­ in this rhetoric, user stands
for the disinterested consumer, or the overly-interested intermediary
dealer or "provider". The consumer plugs into our image-banks to graze
on them like a cow grazes on a meadow, whereas the intermediary
dealer or provider plugs in and grazes on our image-banks like
corporate raiders graze on various smaller businesses, inhaling them in
the process.
The ideology which lies in this specific terminology was best expressed
on Wednesday morning when Nicola Mazzanti presented his vision of
the future work of film archives and museums: nobody needs
programmes or educational presentations anymore, nobody needs
exhibitions curated with a specific knowledge, from a specific position.
actuellement face  un véritable
 tournant néo-libéral  dans les
politiques des archives du film, un
tournant auquel, croit-il, nous devons
nous opposer autant que faire se
peut.
Si c'est ľatelier de la Commission
technique qui motive cette réaction,
le vocabulaire utilisé et ľidéologie
dominante ce jour-l ne sont pas des
cas uniques.  premire vue, il s'agit
ďun débat sur Numérique vs Film et
sur la question Qu'est ce que le film?
Sans entrer dans le vif du sujet,
ľauteur croit néanmoins pouvoir
affirmer que derrire le libellé
Numérique vs Film se cache
ľopposition trs réelle Marché vs
Musée et que derrire la question
Qu'est-ce que le film? on peut
facilement trouver Qu'est-ce que le
musée?
Ľauteur appuie son argumentation
sur trois termes qui ont récemment
fait leur apparition massivement dans
notre vocabulaire : contenu, accs et
utilisateur. Innocents en soi, ces trois
mots n'en sont pas moins utilisés
pour instituer une logique de marché
au détriment des fonctions critique et
politique de tout musée.
Contenu (c'est--dire nos collections)
remplace artefacts, un peu comme
produit remplace film dans le
vocabulaire de ľindustrie
hollywoodienne.
Accs (c'est--dire la manire dont nos
collections sont présentées au public),
dans le langage néo-libéral, veut dire
essentiellement consommation ­ nos
collections devenant autant de
banques ďimages.
Utilisateur (c'est--dire celui ou celle
qui est en contact avec nos
institutions et nos collections), dans
ce nouveau langage, désigne le
fournisseur qui s'intéresse  nos
collections ou le consommateur qui
navigue dans nos banques ďimages.
Si on se fie  ľidée du travail des
archives du film dans ľavenir, tel
qu'on pouvait en déduire en écoutant
Nicola Mazzanti, on en conclut que
plus personne n'a besoin de
programmes ou de présentations
éducatives ; comme dans le marché,
tout doit tre fait pour rejoindre le
consommateur... Or pour ľauteur, le
musée est un outil critique, éthique et
7 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
All forms of making-the-artefacts-public, of communicating them, of
passing them on, will be "user-driven" ­ just like the market usually is
(or, rather, seems to be). In this vision, the museum is either obsolete or
it becomes something like a "server of the world", fulfilling every
conceivable need. The user creates his or her own programme, just as it
is done everywhere else on the audio-visual market. We are therefore
speaking of content-on-demand.
At this point I should make clear that, in my book, a museum is a very
different kind of place and space, a different kind of social practice. The
museum is a critical, ethical, and political tool, which stands in direct
opposition to whatever social mood or climate or ideology is
hegemonic at a given time. The museum does so in many ways. For
instance, by simply reminding the visitor of previous and alternative
forms of social and cultural organization; and thereby reminding him or
her that the current social and cultural climate is not the only one
imaginable. That the dominant forms are never "natural", but historical
and man-made. Furthermore, the museum is a different kind of social
practice because it offers unlevelled, unaligned difference per se
through the material shape of its artefacts; it offers specific and
accountable viewpoints and arguments about culture and society
through curated programmes and exhibitions, by communicating with
the visitor from an identifiable and transparent position.
The museum, as I understand it, is also a space in which one can find
respect. Respect both for the artefacts that are collected, preserved, and
exhibited, and for the person who views them in order to engage with
them. The museum collection, finally, is not an image-bank created by
chance, but an active and poetic process, which should be presented
just as actively and poetically.
All of this, by the way, does not prohibit a museum from fulfilling
additional services to commercial or non-commercial users ­ e.g., to
make a Digi-Beta of a film in the collection, to create a data-stream of
certain of its holdings, or to sell a clip to television ­ if it chooses to do
so and is in a legal position to do so. Iťs just that this is definitely not
the main social function and mandate of a museum.
The neo-liberal rhetoric attempts to paint the museum in a very
different light. Since the Market always needs to portray itself and the
unrestrained flow of capital and content as the most natural and
desirable of all things, every space or tool which functions as a critical
reminder of alternative options must be presented as an obstacle. This
is where the image of the "dusty" and "musty" old museum comes in,
an image that was used quite frequently on Wednesday to convey the
contrast between the bright and light world of free-flow Digital on the
one hand, and the heavy, dusty, old-fashioned world of Film and the
Museum on the other.
In addition, any supporter of the Museum as an ethical or critical tool is
swiftly deemed to be "conservative" or "nave". Along these lines, one
would actually think that the term Archive should evoke even stronger
images of dustiness and mustiness. At least, that used to be the
prevalent image of archives among large parts of the population. But
the New Archive, in neo-liberal terminology, is not at all dusty and
politique qui est en opposition directe
avec toute idéologie dominante  un
moment donné. Qui plus est, le
musée est un lieu o ľon respecte les
artefacts et les personnes qui
souhaitent s'en approcher.
Le discours néo-libéral, il va sans dire,
propose une définition bien différente
du musée. On y invoque volontiers le
musée traditionnel, poussiéreux et
qui sent le renfermé, et on taxe ses
défenseurs de  conservateurs  ou de
 nafs . Ce qui permet ďopposer le
monde brillant et léger de la libre
circulation du numérique au monde
pesant, poussiéreux et vieillot du film
et du musée. Ce en quoi
ľargumentation en cause rejoint celle
pratiquée sur les terrains sociaux et
politiques ­ le terme numérique, dans
un certain contexte culturel, n'étant
pas sans faire penser  ľusage de
ľexpression Forces du marché utilisé
comme instrument de darwinisme
social.
En conclusion, ľauteur se demande si
nous ne trouvons pas désormais, au
sein de la FIAF, face  deux écoles de
pensées,  deux types ďinstitutions,
ľhéritage de Iris Barry, Henri Langlois
et Jacques Ledoux étant identifié au
musée du cinéma-cinémathque,
comme outil critique et éthique. La
question de la conservation et de
ľarchivage, qui a dominé nos
préoccupations au cours des dernires
décennies, a peut-tre ouvert la porte
 des institutions qui veulent mettre
en retrait cet aspect musée pour
devenir davantage des banques
ďimages, gérant des dépôts
intouchables. En face, on trouverait
des archives qui demeureraient des
 musées critiques , avec des
collections vivantes et bâties
poétiquement, des endroits de
réflexion sur les oeuvres.
8 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
musty ­ because it is the image-bank, the valuable asset, the bright
and shiny server of the world.
By painting the dusty old Museum as conservative, and as an obstacle
to the New Archives' swift conversion into the servers of the world, and
by painting dusty old Film as an obstacle to the Digital regime, neoliberal
rhetoric functions exactly the same way as it does in the social
and political arena:Whatever rules and regulations the social state has
implemented to protect the rights of workers and employees, or the
solidarity between generations, or fair access to health services, and so
on ­ all these rights and regulations, and the groups which represent
them (such as unions), are now being painted as "backwards",
"conservative","defensive", and "nave", and as obstacles to the free
reign of the so-called market forces which one is supposed to join
offensively. As an ideological tool of Cultural Darwinism, the current
use of the term Digital in a certain cultural context mirrors the use of
Market Forces as a tool of Social Darwinism. The free flow which is
invoked by both terms attempts to separate itself from ­ and get rid of
­ material objects and the material relations from which they both
derive.
I would also briefly like to point out that the neo-liberal rhetoric of
Digital often comes with a rather specific tone and aesthetic of
presentation which seem to give it credibility because they are so
wonderfully ironic, and, you know, seen-it-all, know-it-all. A certain
sarcasm or cynicism that is even likely to resort to parodies of the bad
English spoken by others. As an homage to its preferred presentation
tool, I would like to call this type of speaking Powerpoint Speak. It
borders on a kind of postmodern propaganda language, because both
technologically and in terms of visual aesthetics and intonation, this
Powerpoint Speak leaves very little room for reflection, pause, eye- and
ear-level communication, and critical understanding.
I feel that we are in the middle of a process which might actually show
that FIAF contains two very different types of thinking, or even consists
of two very different types of organizations. As far as I understand the
history and the identity of FIAF, the idea of the film museum, the
cinematheque, as a critical and ethical tool stands very much at the
centre. At least that seems to be the legacy of people like Iris Barry,
Henri Langlois, or Jacques Ledoux.
In the past two decades, the questions of archiving, conservation, and
preservation have become much more prominent than they used to be,
and rightfully so. But we might now find ourselves at a moment in
time when the newly professionalized archive leaves behind the idea of
the museum as a critical tool and turns into a digital image-bank,
riding on top of perfectly managed cold-storage facilities for
untouchable nitrate and acetate films.
At the end of such a process, this kind of archive would be fully aligned
with and affirmed by the market, and would therefore represent a kind
of nothingness. In political terms, it would be the actual conservative ­
or better, neo-conservative ­ place.
The other type of organization would be an archive which is also a
"critical museum"; a confrontation of concrete artefacts and social
The Market vs the Museum es una
provocación lanzada por Horwath el 10
de junio pasado en el Open Forum, que
clausuró el 61° congreso de la FIAF. El
escrito comentaba el taller de la
Comisión técnica del miércoles anterior
y logró suscitar inmediatamente
numerosas reacciones.
El autor explica que había redactado el
texto con espíritu polémico para
provocar una discusión y recuerda
además que Nicola Mazzanti, miembro
de la Comisión técnica, había invitado
a los participantes a debatir las
propuestas elaboradas por el taller de
la Comisión. Pero, más allá de los
problemas inmediatos planteados por
éste, Horwath solicita a sus colegas,
conservadores y directores de museos,
archiveros y responsables de
programación, una reflexión sobre el
papel de los archiveros en la sociedad,
en una perspectiva más amplia.
Según Horwath, nos hallamos
actualmente ante un verdadero
viraje neoliberal en la política de los
archivos de cine, al cual, según él, es
necesario oponerse en la medida
posible.
Aunque el taller de la Comisión técnica
haya sido el detonante de la reacción,
el léxico utilizado y la ideología
predominantes no representan una
excepción. A simple vista, se trata de
una discusión sobre la oposición entre
digitalización y película y sobre qué es
una película. Sin adentrarse demasiado
en el tema, el autor está convencido de
que detrás del título Digitalización vs.
Película se oculta una oposición muy
real, la de Mercado vs. Museo, y que, a
su vez, detrás de la pregunta Qué es
una película? se percibe sin duda otra:
Qué es el museo?
La argumentación está sustentada en
tres términos que últimamente han
invadido en forma masiva nuestro
lenguaje: contenido, acceso y usuario.
Aunque en sí mismos sean inocentes,
los tres términos han sido utilizados
para poner en marcha una lógica de
mercado que menoscaba las
funciones crítica y política del museo.
La palabra contenido (es decir, nuestras
colecciones) reemplaza a objetos, de la
misma manera que la palabra
producto desplaza a película en el
lenguaje de la industria de Hollywood.
El acceso (es decir, la forma en que
nuestras colecciones son presentadas
al público), en el lenguaje neoliberal,
significa esencialmente consumo, de
tal manera que nuestras colecciones
resultan consideradas como bancos
de imágenes.
9 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
practices; an actively and poetically constructed collection; a place in
which curatorial thinking and work can be felt and argued with. It
would stand counter to the ideology of the market.
I must admit that the latter type of organization will probably bring a
lot of grief ­ the grief of having to endure, engage with, and survive
current cultural politics, which run on the fetish of the Digital and
Digitisation. On this point, however, I would like to quote William
Faulkner, by way of Jean-Luc Godard: Between grief and nothingness, I
will take grief.
El usuario (es decir, quien está en
contacto con nuestras instituciones y
colecciones) designa, en este nuevo
lenguaje, al proveedor que tiene
interés por nuestras colecciones o el
consumidor que navega en nuestros
bancos de imágenes.
Si se sigue la idea del trabajo futuro
de los archivos de cine que se puede
deducir de las palabras con que Nicola
Mazzanti presenta su propuesta, se
llega a la conclusión de que ya nadie
necesita programas o presentaciones
educativas y, como en el mercado, el
objetivo sería llegar al consumidor...
Para el autor, en cambio, el museo es
un instrumento crítico, ético y político,
que se opone frontalmente a
cualquier ideología por predominante
que sea en un momento dado. Es más,
el museo es un lugar en el que se
respetan los objetos de colección y
quienes desean acercarse a ellos.
Es obvio que el discurso neoliberal
propone una definición muy distinta del
museo tradicional:lo evoca como un
lugar polvoriento,que huele a rancio y
tacha a sus defensores de
conservadores o ingenuos,
oponiendo así el mundo brillante y leve
de la libre circulación de lo digital al
mundo pesado y anticuado de la
película y el museo.Esta argumentación
es similar a la que se practica en los
ámbitos sociales y políticos y,en algunos
contextos culturales,el término digital
no puede dejar de recordar la expresión
fuerzas del mercado, usada como
instrumento de darwinismo social.
En conclusión, el autor se pregunta si,
en la FIAF, no nos encontramos ya
ante dos escuelas de pensamiento o
dos tipos de instituciones y si la
herencia de Iris Barry, Henri Langlois y
Jacques Ledoux no se identifica con el
museo del cine-cinemateca, como
instrumento crítico y ético.
El problema de la conservación y el
archivaje, que ha dominado nuestras
preocupaciones durante las últimas
décadas, quizás ha abierto las puertas
a instituciones que desean desplazar
este aspecto hacia la retaguardia,
para transformar el museo en banco
de imágenes, gestor de depósitos
intocables. Ante los nuevos archivos,
concebidos ideológicamente como
bancos de películas, perduran aún
algunas cinematecas que conservan
su función de museos críticos y
custodian colecciones vivas
elaboradas poéticamente.
Alexander Horwath,
Director of the
Österreichisches
Filmmuseum in Vienna
10 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
I would like to thank the Journal for publishing this exchange of ideas
between Alexander and me, but most of all, I warmly want to thank
Alexander Horwath for his passion, and for having taken the time to
open a public discussion on these topics, a debate I wish had started long
ago, and which I hope will continue in coming issues of the Journal with
other contributions.
Dear Alexander,
First, let me say that I have mixed feelings in starting this discussion
with you. In fact, I tend to sympathize, and ­ more often than not ­ to
agree with what you write, besides having a deep appreciation for the
present and past activities of the Filmmuseum in Vienna. So, on the one
hand it feels somehow strange to be brought to highlight the points of
disagreement between us, rather than the common feelings. But on
the other hand I realized that I very much prefer to disagree and have a
frank, open, and eventually provocative discussion with somebody I
respect and like, rather than to agree with those with whom I have
little in common. So, finally, here I am.
I also count on the fact that we will continue this dialogue on other
occasions, and in more depth than what is possible here and now,
where space is limited.
For the sake of clarity, leťs start from my presentation at the Technical
Commission Workshop.
First of all, I was not referring to filmmuseums, but more generally to
film archives. And this to me ­ as I will discuss later ­ makes a whole lot
of difference.
Then, I do not think I ever said that "nobody needs programmes or
educational presentations anymore, nobody needs exhibitions curated
with a specific knowledge, from a specific position".
What I tried to say was that in the overall context of film archives, if
and/or when Digital is used, I expect to witness more "access on
demand" in parallel with the current access strategies in film archives,
which are mostly limited to what we can call "programming", or what
you refer to as "museum activities and function". And I must insist on
the words "more" and "in parallel".
I also added (and here, I agree, I resorted to some degree of
provocation) that I hoped archives would not limit their access
strategies to streaming videos or DVDs, because I am deeply convinced
that this would be just a faster way to kill "cinema" and ultimately for
the archives to commit a sort of institutional suicide, by denying the
very reason of their existence.
Response to Alexander Horwath
Nicola Mazzanti
Open Forum
11 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
What I advocate is that archives look into different access strategies
and modes, which include film projection (as long as it is possible) in
the first place, but also include digital projection, whenever
appropriate, possible, and advantageous (more on that later). Archives
should definitely ascertain (by carrying out research and tests) to which
extent, in which occasions, and by using which technologies and
techniques, digital projection can be considered "an acceptable
simulation of a film projection". I am the first to say that we need a
significant amount of testing and discussions before defining all the
terms of this equation: acceptable, simulation, film projection, and
digital projection. We can probably start, I suggested, by accepting the
fact that, more often than not, whenever we reproduce a film by a
different technique or in a different technological context (e.g., tinted
and toned or Technicolor film today, or a modern projection system for
a film from the 1930s), we produce something that I would define as a
"representation", if not a "simulation", which comes short of an
"authentic reproduction", as we too often pretend to do. (I think this is
another discussion which is way overdue. We should start it someday,
and the sooner the better. But here I am afraid it is beyond the point.)
As I said earlier, I do believe that the distinction between film archives
and film museums is not just nominalistic, but rather an important one,
because it defines a context and an object of discussion, and I am
afraid that we are not really talking about the same thing. After all, as
you reminded us, words are important,"nomina sunt res".
Evidently, I agree that film museums exist, although I must say I am not
completely comfortable with the idea that a certain notion of
"museum" (as we know it from other contexts and disciplines) can be
automatically transferred to "film museums". This, for a number of
considerations, has to do with the essence of the materials to be
"exhibited", and with the difficulty of comparing deeply different ways
of displaying and experiencing artefacts and films. (While I can admit
that some films are artefacts, I am not comfortable with the concept
that all films are artefacts, or better, just artefacts. But this is another
discourse, and besides, I think it is beyond the point.)
But apart from this, I think the central issue here is that what we can
call "museology" is still (or just) one of the several functions that
complex organizations as film archives have. And the weight of this
function against others evidently differs from one archive to another.
There are institutions for which this function is at the core of their
history and identity (as is the case for the Österreichisches
Filmmuseum), but it is correct to say that in most archives this function
coexists with others, with which it often has a complex dialectical
relation (the never fully resolved chiasm of conservation-exhibition).
Even worse, this museum function is not even present in many
Archives, and what is even more interesting is that most of these "nonmuseum
Archives" are also those having the largest collections.
My point here is that while I can agree (at least on a rather general
level) with your idea that a certain approach to film access is potentially
dangerous for the museological function of a Film Archive, I must say
that these considerations are only relevant for some archives, or at least
for only one part of film archives' function and role.
Absent de ľOpen Forum du 10 juin,
Nicola Mazzanti nous a proposé de
répondre  Alexander Horvath, avec
ľaccord préalable de ce dernier.
Bien qu'en accord avec la plupart des
remarques de son collgue viennois,
ľauteur veut néanmoins tenter de
répondre aux points de désaccords
soulevés par ce dernier, en insistant
ďabord sur le fait que ses critiques
s'adressaient ďabord aux  archives
du film  et non pas aux
 filmmuseums  - une distinction qui
n'est pas que formelle.
Essentiellement, ce que ľauteur tenait
 dire, c'est que, une fois les outils du
numérique mis  notre disposition, il
serait normal ďimaginer des
possibilités ďaccs aux collections
plus souples et parallles aux
projections publiques traditionnelles.
Il faut multiplier les stratégies et les
approches ďaccs aux collections,
incluant la projection sur grand écran
(tant que ce sera possible), mais sans
nous priver, quand cela est possible,
voire mme avantageux, de la
projection numérique. Et c'est la
responsabilité des archives du film de
décider (aprs études et tests
appropriés) quand, et dans quelles
conditions, la projection numérique
peut tre proposée comme
 simulation acceptable  ďune
projection de cinéma. Et, ďajouter
ľauteur, il faudra encore beaucoup de
tests et de nombreuses discussions
avant ďatteindre cette étape.
Le caractre muséal de ľactivité ďun
certain nombre de cinémathques
vient assurément compliquer la
question : si pour certaines
institutions, les activités muséales
sont au coeur de leur activité, pour la
plupart, ces activités co-habitent,
souvent dans un rapport dialectique,
avec beaucoup ďautres activités ­
sans mentionner que plusieurs
archives du film, et parmi les plus
grandes, n'ont aucune activité
muséale.
Pour ľauteur, ľaccs élargi aux
collections ( access on demand ), ne
s'oppose pas  ľactivité muséale (de
programmation critique, notamment),
mais devrait au contraire en tre
indissociable. Et les outils numériques
désormais  notre disposition ne
pourraient-ils pas constituer autant
de façons de faciliter ľaccs  nos
collections, pour les chercheurs,
comme pour le public cinéphile en
général?
12 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
Now, this does not mean that film museums (or film archives'
museological function) are irrelevant or useless (nor that they will be so
in the future). On the contrary, we all agree (at least the two of us) that
they provide a very relevant, irreplaceable service to the public, scholars,
and the so-called field in general, in contributing to debate, and in
circulating and highlighting ideas, areas of research,"viewpoints and
arguments about culture and society through curated programmes and
exhibitions".
But on the other hand, I must admit that I am not fully comfortable with
your implicit undermining of the role and function of what I termed
"access on demand", or, as we used to say, research (and here, once and
for all, I must confess my guilt of having used words too often used by
our common enemy, but I must say in my defence that the lack of serious
debate on these subjects within archives results in an impoverished
"counter-vocabulary"); in other words, the"library function"as opposed ­
but not in contradiction ­ to the"museum function".
Unfortunately, as many (film) archival Institutions call themselves
"archives" or "libraries", this must relate to the way they see
themselves, or the way they prioritize their many functions. And when
we think of the common, basic concepts of "archive" and "library", it is
difficult to deny that their first "raison ďtre" lies, in fact, in allowing
research and unorganized, unmediated access by favouring,
supporting, and helping researchers, scholars, and (with some
limitations and rules which still do not negate their basic functions)
the general public, whenever they seek access to documents, works,
texts, and/or information about them (i.e., cataloguing information).
I do not think we can seriously disagree about this, and about the fact
that ideas, views, and interpretations which are offered and spread by
film museums do not grow on trees, but rather stem out of a cultural,
historical, aesthetical discussion, and research that it is fed by the work
of scholars and researchers with access to primary sources ­ in other
words, who have been allowed access on demand to film collections. I
do not think I need to mention seminal work, such as that of Heide
Schlüpmann on German silents, or the generation of studies which
resulted from the enlarged, undifferentiated, unmediated access
opportunity created by the Nederlands Filmmuseum's campaign of
preservation in the 1990s, because I am sure we all know what I am
referring to. It is undeniable that in the past quarter of a century the
most important impulses to film historiography and interpretation
originated by the unprecedented possibilities to study primary sources.
Apart from these considerations, we should not forget that many
archives ­ actually many large archives ­ do not have a museological
function at all, and the only form of access they could provide is "access
on demand". And even if they do have a regular activity of
programming and "curated, mediated access", the sheer dimensions and
variety of their collections are such that this function alone would not
be sufficient to allow a significant study and knowledge of their
holdings ­ not to mention what I would define "enjoyment" of their
collections by a general public that is not necessarily carrying out
research. In essence, to find solutions for providing access for this type
of public is of strategic importance for film archives if they want to
13 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
"build" a new audience for their collections, as well as to reaffirm their
role in contemporary society.
Clearly, I am not proposing that this library function ­ "access on
demand" ­ is in opposition to the museum function. On the contrary, I
see them not only as two facets of the role archives should play, but as
two aspects which are so inherently interrelated and interdependent
that one could not exist without the other. I am deeply convinced that
the film archives' system as a whole ­ if not each individual archive ­
should be able to fulfil both these functions, and that it would be a
serious mistake to prioritize or undermine one against the other.
Now, having said this, I think it is also undeniable that in general terms
archives fail to fulfil the function of providing "library-type",
unmediated, research-oriented access.
They fail to do so for a complex number of reasons: they are not used
to doing so, and for historical reasons they do not see this as a priority;
this would require resources (human, logistical, and ultimately
budgetary) that archives often lack; and, finally, the "environment"
which made it possible in the past has largely disappeared. Here I refer
to that vast and differentiated network that made it easy to access
16mm prints, to rent projection equipment, to use cineclubs and
repertory cinemas ­ in other words, that infrastructure (mostly not
directly connected with archives) which allowed organizations not
primarily devoted to film programming to organize screenings in the
context of schools, universities, cultural centres, or even privately, easily
and at affordable cost.
What we are witnessing today is in fact a landscape of devastation due
to a growing complexity in providing and obtaining "access on
demand", in carrying out research, or in utilizing archival films for
cultural, educational, or pure enjoyment purposes. The result is the
impossibility of feeding and breeding a florid, vivid, and differentiated
discourse on film history and aesthetics. As a consequence, this ends up
being impoverished by the necessity of resorting exclusively to the
"corpus" of commercially available DVDs. This, I think, is the really
unfortunate triumph of a "liberal", commercially driven wave, which
threatens to overtake and overwhelm archives and to make their role
growingly "marginal" in the years to come.
Also, this creates a perverted, self-perpetrating, and self-feeding circle:
the complexity of accessing film collections reduces the request for
access (and, objectively, also contributes to the decrease in audiences
for film archives' theatres ­ the famous "museological activity" ­ which
we are witnessing everywhere); this reduced demand then justifies a
further reduction in the film projections on offer (both as part of
programming and for research and educational purposes), which in
turn encourages the use of other sources (mainly commercial DVDs)
and a decrease in the use of archives' collections, which then further
depresses requests, and so on, in a vicious circle which we do not seem
to be able to break.
In reality, this perverted dynamic has very little to do with the advent of
"Digital", for the simple fact that it had started long before Digital even
existed.
Nicola Mazzanti, ausente en el Open
Forum del 10 de junio, hizo llegar la
propuesta de responder a la ponencia
de Alexander Horwath, a lo cual éste
accedió.
Mazzanti, si bien coincidiera en
general con su colega vienés, se
propone replicar a las discrepancias
destacadas por éste último,
insistiendo en primer lugar en el
hecho de que sus críticas apunten
principalmente a los archivos
cinematográficos y no a los museos
de cine, pues es una distinción que
no implica consideraciones sólo de
orden formal.
Lo que el autor enfatiza es que,
disponiendo ya de instrumentos
digitales, sería lógico imaginar otras
posibilidades de acceso a las
colecciones, más flexibles y paralelas a
las exhibiciones tradicionales. Se
trata, pues, de mutiplicar las
estrategias y concepciones de acceso
a las colecciones, incluyendo la
proyección en pantalla grande
(mientras sea posible), sin privarnos
por ello, sobre todo en el caso de que
sea factible o incluso ventajoso, de
proyecciones digitales.
Incumbe a los archivos
cinematográficos el hecho de decidir,
en base a estudios y ensayos
adecuados, las ocasiones y
condiciones en que una proyección
digital pueda reemplazar, como
simulación aceptable a una
proyección cinematográfica. Además
el autor precisa que aún deben ser
enfrentados múltiples ensayos y
discusiones antes de llegar a esa
etapa.
El carácter museal de las actividades
de algunas cinematecas, sea o no
preponderante, complica el debate. En
algunas instituciones el museo
constituye el núcleo de sus
actividades. En cambio hay
cinematecas cuyas actividades
museales conviven con otras
numerosas y distintas, a menudo en
una relación dialéctica; sin olvidar que
muchas cinematecas, incluso las más
grandes, no cuentan con actividad
museal alguna.
Para el autor, el acceso amplio a las
colecciones (access on demand), no
se opone a la actividad museal, y
tampoco a la programación crítica,
sino más bien las dos modalidades de
14 Journal of Film Preservation / 70 / 2005
acceso deberían ser complementarias
e inscindibles. Plantea por último si
los distintos instrumentos digitales a
nuestra disposición no constituyan
otras maneras más de facilitar el
acceso a las colecciones tanto a
investigadores como al público
cinéfilo en general.
So, as I tried to make clear in my presentation, I am asking myself if the
opportunities that seem to be offered by some digital technologies
could not help to break this "vicious circle" by creating the conditions
for archives to change and improve their access strategies, reducing the
costs and complexity of opening up their collections to other archives
(for their own programming and exhibition activities), allowing easier
ways for researchers and for an enlarged public to access their
collections, and for their holdings to become available for research in a
wide range of disciplines.
In short, I am advocating that archives look into the issue of how digital
projection (and not, as I stated earlier, just DVDs and web streaming,
which to me are obviously insufficient to represent the complexity of
the film experience) could be used, in parallel with other delivery and
programming strategies, to reinforce and reconfirm the many roles
archives should play, including the functions of museum and library.
Frankly, it looks to me as if this is a major opportunity for archives to
regain a role in providing, encouraging, and supporting research and
education practices based on experiencing film projection, or a high
quality simulation of it, i.e., to provide more and better "access on
demand".
In conclusion, I would like to steal your quotation of Faulkner via
Godard, and agree with it ­ how could I not?
Yes,"between grief and nothingness, I will take grief " ­ and thaťs exactly
what I am doing, and advocating. Between the nothingness which is
looming above film archives, that nothingness produced by the threat
of marginalization, I prefer the grief brought to us by Digital, the grief
of getting our hands dirty with its mud, of exploring new paths
knowing they might fail, for the simple reason that we dare to admit
that the old models are not sufficient anymore.
In other words, I prefer the grief brought by the risk of failure, to the
nothingness of inertia.
Cordially, as always,
Nicola Mazzanti